- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 168
- Likes
- 1,256
Comm2A has joined an amicus brief rging SCOTUS to grant certiorari review in Pena v. Horan, the challenge to California's handgun roster and microstamping requirement.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Joining Amicus in California Roster Case
- Thread starter Comm2A
- Start date
I think that would depend on the decision. First, SCOTUS has to grant certiorari, which they rarely do. Second, if they do decide to hear the case, SCOTUS could throw out the microstamping but leave the roster portion, which would not impact the MA roster. Third, even if SCOTUS threw out the CA roster, we would still likely need to go to court to get our roster thrown out.
tl;dr Don’t hold your breath.
tl;dr Don’t hold your breath.
Last edited:
I think this is probably right. The California roster law is far more draconian than ones found in any other state. The fact that guns are regularly added to the MA roster already sets us apart from California. Still, you have to start with something and this is a good place.
The real problem in Massachusetts isn't the law so much as it's the AG's 'Safe' handgun regulations simply because the AG has so much latitude in interpreting the regulation. Kisor v. Wilkie is the hope there. Arguments are in March and there seems to be strong feeling that the high court will use this as an opportunity to reign in the administrative state. Kisor has the potential for far-reaching consequences.
Respondent filed their brief in opposition last week: Search - Supreme Court of the United States
Distributed for April 12th conference. Search - Supreme Court of the United States
yanici
NES Member
Thank you.
Good questions. Sure, conference is an important part of the process for Supreme Court petitions. The process (usually) goes something like this:
- The petitioner files a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. The petition states a question the Supreme Court should answer and states why the court should grant cert and answer the question.
- With few exceptions, SCOTUS is a court of discretionary jurisdiction. There are only a very small number of cases where they have original jurisdiction - like "all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls," and cases between states or between state and foreign governments.
- The other party, the respondent, then has the opportunity to file a response telling they court why they shouldn't grant cert. Often times the respondent will waive their right to respond. But sometimes SCOTUS 'requests' a response and gives the respondent a deadline.
- Amici parties may also weigh in encouraging the court to grant cert. Amici briefs at the cert stage are almost totally unheard of. Why bring attention to case you DON'T want them to hear?
- The court might also ask for the view of the Solicitor General i.e United States.
- Before the court grants or denies cert, they distribute it for conference. That's what's currently on the schedule for Pena. This is a closed door meeting with just the justices where they decide whether to grant cert or not. Kavanaugh has to bring the coffee and donuts and answers the door when someone knocks. We often see 2A cases relisted for another conference. Often this means that Thomas or another justice needs time to write a dissent from denial of cert. But sometimes cases are granted cert after one or more relists. Relists usually means something is happening.
- If cert is granted, we move on to the merits stage and an entirely new round of briefing by both parties and amici on the merits of the case (as opposed to briefs during the cert stage that only address whether this is a case that the court should hear. NYSRPA vs. NYC is in the merits stage.
Does this mean that one of Ginsburg's clerks can sink a 2A petition? Not likely. High visibility petitions, 2A and otherwise get a lot of attention. There's never just one person that's reviewed a petition.
*BTW, the signing bonus for former Supreme Court clerks is currently $400,000. And that's with the understanding that they can't work on Supreme Court cases for two years!
